Author: Gerd Isenberg
Date: 11:01:52 04/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 09, 2004 at 13:03:26, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On April 09, 2004 at 12:01:20, rasjid chan wrote: > >I completely agree with Christophe. Writing ugly code doesn't necessary require bitboards. > >Faster than bitboards for complex software is using my publicly posted as Gerd >says "straightforward code" to generate moves. > Yes, if the challange is nps beancounter - i wouldn't use bitboards ;-) Or? >Without inline assembly at opteron bitboards is just dead slow. Because of one prefix byte for 64-bit instructions with unsigned long long or unsigned __int64? Or did you confuse 64-bit general purpose registers with xmm? > >Who wants to program in assembly in the year 2004? Some like it ;-) Anyway it is absolutely not necessary. You may even bitscan without assembly or neither intrinsics. 64*64bit mul is not that dead slow with AMD64. Cheers, Gerd > <snip>
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.